A hypothetical dilemma?

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 01:51PM

bou wrote: »

One pedantic point: You can never be faced with a hypothetical dilemma. You are faced with it or not.

So which is it? Can we be faced with it or not? Even hypothetically?

bou wrote: »

The hypothesis is based on shaky ground. It looks like a very middle class hypothesis.

I wasn't aware that hypothetical situations came in classes.

bou wrote: »

How do you become poor and a drain on society? Be born into a poor family with no resources to train you. Get marginalised from the start so you think that society has it in for you and you will get what you can from society without any regard for that society. The moral values of that society are meaningless to you since it couldn't care less about you. You and your lack of productiveness are part of the society that produced you.

Many entrepreneurs have been born into poor families and have become millionaires and have provided other people with jobs. You can be poor but not a drain. Once your efforts are that of someone who is actively working to get out of his/her poverty by looking for work and if no work is forth coming then doing something to further the cause of the fit instead of using valuable resources caring for the weak. If you fall into this category then you are fit all be it still poor but certainly not a drain.

bou wrote: »

Answering the hypothesis, I'd say, no, lets re-model society in a more equitable manner and give the ecosystem a chance to aprticipate too.

But if this involves using up valuable resources caring for the sick and the weak then the writing is one the wall. We must break free from this circle or destruction and there are only two options open. Utter neglect of the weak or utter defiance of the new system. Either way people will die but what I was wanting to see was the reasons that people here would have for either or option.

CerebralCortex · 15-04-2009 01:53PM

bou wrote: »

The economics of the current world order depends on there being poor people. Get rid of the poor people and the world order collapses anyway.

Is that true?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its a simple bloody question. A or B? I know you are constrained by the hypothetical scenario which is why it is structured that what. I want to know what you would choose if this scenario were true and why, jeeeeze...

Consciously letting the human race die out would be very immoral so A. The sick(whatever that means termianlly ill, cold...) and the weak probably wouldn't want the human race extinguished either.

I wondered what the real question you were trying to ask was and then I read this:

Soul Winner wrote: »

You tell me. What does meaning have to do with your ethical choices? I have mine but what meaning is their in choosing option B in a purely naturalistic world? I'm not saying that there is no meaning in a purely naturalistic world view, I just find it difficult to see what meaning there could be in a world without ultimate meaning and without God there is no ultimate meaning IMO. If you think there is then I want to know what it is. If meaning itself has no meaning to you then what is it in life that you value or hold dear? Surely these things have meaning to you at least?

Borneo Fnctn · 15-04-2009 01:55PM

Dades wrote: »

Our planet will continue to revolve around the sun, and cats will rule the earth until the next asteroid.

I also always thought the cats would be next in line. Shleveens.

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 01:59PM

darjeeling wrote: »

That's right! Just answer, yes or no, are you still beating your wife?

However, I think if letting the elderly, sick, weak etc go to the wall was so crucial for the continued survival of our genes, we would have evolved to find it the moral thing to do. And the holy books we'd have written for ourselves would reflect just that.

.

Is that your answer to my simple hypothetical scenario? Does it fall under A or B? I never proposed that is was always crucial, the scenario puts forth the situation where it has been scientifically and conclusively shown that it has now become crucial to do this. What would you do given the only options open to you and why?

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 02:20PM

Dades wrote: »

What is the ultimate meaning with God? I never quite got that one.

Well I'm sure even atheists would agree that if they found out tomorrow that there was a God who created and ordered the universe and has a purpose for it and a purpose for mankind then that would be a good source of ultimate meaning to some people if not others.

Theists having had this meaning already in their lives be it viewed as delusion by atheists or not, would be severely shaken should they find out tomorrow that the God which they thought existed really doesn't exist after all. The meaning that that once held belief gave to them about life and about their purpose in it would simple dissolve away to be replaced by what?

What possible ultimate meaning can life have for these people once it was revealed that the God they thought existed doesn't exist after all? I'm sure they could find temporary meaning and purpose in this life but the answers they got from their faith to questions relating to ultimate purpose and meaning are now left unanswered. What could an atheist say to these people that would fill that void? How could what they say replace that ultimate meaning they once got from their faith?

My contention is that they cannot say anything because without God there is no ultimate meaning in life. My question to Rob was to show me that there is.

bou · 15-04-2009 02:20PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Is that true?

I believe it is true from what I've read of various economists. Someone has to work on the farm, in the mine, in the factory. Resources are divided according to your position in society and the chances are that if you are in the low end of society, you will not progress out of that position and will be afforded the minimum resources to survive. A few exceptional and lucky people do manage to rise to better positions.

Wikipedia has an interesting jumping off point, Cyclical or Keynesian unemployment,for some reading in this area.

darjeeling · 15-04-2009 02:21PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is that your answer to my simple hypothetical scenario? Does it fall under A or B? I never proposed that is was always crucial, the scenario puts forth the situation where it has been scientifically and conclusively shown that it has now become crucial to do this. What would you do given the only options open to you and why?

I can't really begin to imagine the circumstances in which this would apply. Science doing what?? Crucial how? Who is this hypothetical 'you' - the all-controlling dictator of the world, or the ordinary everyman? Is any regular person really going to be convinced that they must let their sick relatives die to ensure the survival of unborn humans several generations hence, whose kinship to them is unknown?

The point is that the hypothetical situation is so absurd that an A or B answer wouldn't tell you anything of any interest. And I think CerebralCortex is right on the hidden agenda.

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 02:34PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wondered what the real question you were trying to ask was and then I read this:

What has what I said subsequent to my OP got to do with the A or B choice in the hypothetical scenario though? I'd pick B straight off because I'd feel morally obliged to do so. If a study like that came out today and it was forced on us to choose then I'd go with option B, but then I would given that I have a faith in eternal life after this one so from my pov going out caring for the needy would be better than going out looking out for me. That's why I put the scenario on the A+A forum, to find out what you guys would pick and why. In a purely naturalistic and atheistic world view it is quite natural to pick A so why is there a big hullabaloo about choosing it? Because deep down you feel bad about it. But why? What's the big deal?

Galvasean · 15-04-2009 02:41PM

Dades wrote: »

Option B, means you don't. Instead you will allow the human race die out, including the sick, old, young and healthy. Our planet will continue to revolve around the sun, and cats will rule the earth until the next asteroid.

Not if this guy has anything to say about it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zfyRxPPVI4

marco_polo · 15-04-2009 02:47PM

I even have a backup plan in case those all those sickos get too clever and try to get better all by themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs

darjeeling · 15-04-2009 02:53PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

What has what I said subsequent to my OP got to do with the A or B choice in the hypothetical scenario though? I'd pick B straight off because I'd feel morally obliged to do so. If a study like that came out today and it was forced on us to choose then I'd go with option B, but then I would given that I have a faith in eternal life after this one so from my pov going out caring for the needy would be better than going out looking out for me. That's why I put the scenario on the A+A forum, to find out what you guys would pick and why. In a purely naturalistic and atheistic world view it is quite natural to pick A so why is there a big hullabaloo about choosing it? Because deep down you feel bad about it. But why? What's the big deal?

OP (paraphrased): Given that eugenics has been proven to be scientifically right, is it morally wrong? Yes or no.

Me: but...

OP: I SAID YES OR NO!!!

Reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGyma1F49fQ

CerebralCortex · 15-04-2009 02:54PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

What has what I said subsequent to my OP got to do with the A or B choice in the hypothetical scenario though? I'd pick B straight off because I'd feel morally obliged to do so. If a study like that came out today and it was forced on us to choose then I'd go with option B, but then I would given that I have a faith in eternal life after this one so from my pov going out caring for the needy would be better than going out looking out for me. That's why I put the scenario on the A+A forum, to find out what you guys would pick and why. In a purely naturalistic and atheistic world view it is quite natural to pick A so why is there a big hullabaloo about choosing it? Because deep down you feel bad about it. But why? What's the big deal?

It's a setup to allow you to push God hence the hullabaloo which I don't there was much of. Taking what you said in bold, what has the survival of the human race got to do with looking out for yourself I understood that it was the human race at stake. Am I wrong? Actually taking care of others so you get into heaven is ultimately a selfish act anyway, sacrifcing the human race for your own spiritual gains tsk tsk Soul Winner

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 03:06PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

It's a setup to allow you to push God hence the hullabaloo which I don't there was much of. Taking what you said in bold, what has the survival of the human race got to do with looking out for yourself I understood that it was the human race at stake. Am I wrong? Actually taking care of others so you get into heaven is ultimately a selfish act anyway, sacrifcing the human race for your own spiritual gains tsk tsk Soul Winner

But my take on the OP takes nothing away from what you chose. I gave my reasons why I would choose B and they may be selfish in your judgment or whatever but what about your choice? I haven't judged anyone's choices to be right or wrong based on my own value system. You were better of just choosing A of B and giving a why instead of derailing the thread in order to to make yourself look clever. Like I said at least Zilah, Seanybike and Goduznt Xzst just chose an option. It's not rocket science.

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 03:20PM

darjeeling wrote: »

OP (paraphrased): Given that eugenics has been proven to be scientifically right, is it morally wrong? Yes or no.

Me: but...

OP: I SAID YES OR NO!!!

Reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGyma1F49fQ

If you look back at the posts you will see that the basis for why some chose option A was a moral basis. They don't want the human race to die out, which is fine. Zilah said that anyone who disagreed with this is a fool. But why are they a fool? They don't want the needy to die out either. Both options have a moral basis as Dades quite rightly points out, but which one is ultimately right and why? Who can say? My later point to you and CC was that in a universe without God there is no ultimate right or wrong choice. Both are as valid the other. One values the future survival of the human race whereas the other values the lives of the weak and sick. Both options are fine until the one who chooses A clashes with the one who chooses B. Both think they are right and in a sense they both are but I contend that neither has any ultimate meaning in a universe without God. If I'm wrong then what is the ultimate meaning for choosing either or option?

CerebralCortex · 15-04-2009 03:22PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

But my take on the OP takes nothing away from what you chose. I gave my reasons why I would choose B and they may be selfish in your judgment or whatever but what about your choice? I haven't judged anyone's choices to be right or wrong based on my own value system. You were better of just choosing A of B and giving a why instead of derailing the thread in order to to make yourself look clever. Like I said at least Zilah, Seanybike and Goduznt Xzst just chose an option. It's not rocket science.

I chose an option. I was curious as the reasons behind your proposition. Maybe I should have taken it at face value.

pts · 15-04-2009 03:32PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

One values the future survival of the human race whereas the other values the lives of the weak and sick. Both options are fine until the one who chooses A clashes with the one who chooses B.

Not so sure I follow that logic. If option B is choosen, all will die including the weak and sick. If I've understood you correctly the justification you've given for not choosing option A is that that's not the kind of world you'd like to live in.
Keep in mind though that you're then making a God-like decision, to be, or not to be, with the human race. What is scarier (to me anyway) is that you are justifying that decision on nothing more than a "gut feeling".

Goduznt Xzst · 15-04-2009 03:34PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

My later point to you and CC was that in a universe without God there is no ultimate right or wrong choice.

Correct. So there being no God there is ultimately no right or wrong choice.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Both are as valid the other. One values the future survival of the human race whereas the other values the lives of the weak and sick.

No they aren't equally valid. One option ends with the human race surviving, the other ends with the human race dying. What is right and what is wrong depends solely on circumstance. Where I old and sick, yes I'd view people picking A as wrong as I want to survive. Where I young and healthy I'd view people picking B as wrong as I want to survive (you get the picture now)

Soul Winner wrote: »

If I'm wrong then what is the ultimate meaning for choosing either or option?

There is no ultimate meaning, that is the point. There is no such thing as right and wrong, only circumstance. I'm really trying hard to see where you are going with this, if anywhere.

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 03:42PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I chose an option. I was curious as the reasons behind your proposition. Maybe I should have taken it at face value.

Thank you. There was no reason really, just something that popped into my head that I thought would be interesting to put on this forum. Like I said there is no right or wrong answer, just curious to know what you guys would choose giving the options available.

marco_polo · 15-04-2009 03:55PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you look back at the posts you will see that the basis for why some chose option A was a moral basis. They don't want the human race to die out, which is fine. Zilah said that anyone who disagreed with this is a fool. But why are they a fool? They don't want the needy to die out either. Both options have a moral basis as Dades quite rightly points out, but which one is ultimately right and why? Who can say? My later point to you and CC was that in a universe without God there is no ultimate right or wrong choice. Both are as valid the other. One values the future survival of the human race whereas the other values the lives of the weak and sick. Both options are fine until the one who chooses A clashes with the one who chooses B. Both think they are right and in a sense they both are but I contend that neither has any ultimate meaning in a universe without God. If I'm wrong then what is the ultimate meaning for choosing either or option?

If God exists it would still be a moral dilema should scientists discover such a fate was on the cards for humanity.

What would be the meaning of chosing either option in that case, apart from the fact that the one that happens was (in retrospect of course) Gods will?

In fact if there is absolute morality, how is it that moral dilemas can even exist?

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 03:56PM

pts wrote: »

If I've understood you correctly the justification you've given for not choosing option A is that that's not the kind of world you'd like to live in.

I can find no other reason for choosing option B, that is why I added the moral reason. What other reason could anyone have for choosing option B other than a moral reason? If you think of one let me know.

pts wrote: »

Keep in mind though that you're then making a God-like decision, to be, or not to be, with the human race. What is scarier (to me anyway) is that you are justifying that decision on nothing more than a "gut feeling".

How do know that my decision is based on "gut feeling"? Option B is based on a moral decision that is held by people who value the sick and the needy. Option A is based on a moral decision that is held by people who value the survival of the human race. Choosing B doesn't in anyway mean that you are wanting the destruction of the human race anymore than choosing option A means you want to see the sick and weak die.

But from the perception of someone who chooses option A, choosers of option B look as if they want the destruction of the human race which is a wrong perception just like those who choose option B thinking that choosers of option A want to see the sick and the weak die. Both perceptions are wrong if that's the case but in terms of choosing one or the other both options are as right or as wrong as eachother. What would you choose if this was the case and these were the only options?

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 03:59PM

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

There is no ultimate meaning, that is the point. There is no such thing as right and wrong, only circumstance. I'm really trying hard to see where you are going with this, if anywhere.

I'm not going anywhere with it. I just popped it up in here to see how it would fly. It has turned out more interesting than I thought.

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 04:26PM

marco_polo wrote: »

If God exists it would still be a moral dilemma should scientists discover such a fate was on the cards for humanity.

What would be the meaning of choosing either option in that case, apart from the fact that the one that happens was (in retrospect of course) Gods will?

In the absence of God there is no right or wrong choice. Both are made based on internal moral value systems and neither choosers of option A or B can say that the other is wrong.

In the presence of God and without a divine command in choosing either or, then the best way to proceed is to go with one's own conscience. Without a divine command in respect of the choosing, a just God can only judge you by your motives. He sees the heart so He would know why you chose what you chose, so if your motives in choosing either or were based on what you have internalized as the right choice then there would be nothing to worry about.

But in the presence of a divine command in choosing either A or B, then obeying the divine command would be the way to go no matter what option that might be.

marco_polo wrote: »

In fact if there is absolute morality, how is it that moral dilemas can even exist?

I could ask the same question but in reverse, if there is no absolute morality then how is it that moral dilemmas can even exist.

pts · 15-04-2009 04:27PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

I can find no other reason for choosing option B that is why I added the moral reason. What other reason could anyone have for choosing option B other than a moral reason? If you think of one let me know.

One (not very good) reason might be that you or someone you love would be killed off if option A was chosen.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How do know that my decision is based on "gut feeling"?

Might be a badly chosen word. In fairness though "gut feeling" isn't a horrible way to describe the voice in your head that says "you can't do that" from time to time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Option B is based on a moral decision that is held by people who value the sick and the needy. Option A is based on a moral decision that is held by people who value the survival of the human race. Choosing B doesn't in anyway mean that you are wanting the destruction of the human race anymore than choosing option A means you want to see the sick and weak die.

I nearly agree with you. However I think you're missing one crucial point though. Regardless of which option you choose the sick and needy will die. So the question becomes which of the two the two consequences would you find the easiest to live with (assuming you survive). This is where we differ. I would justify my choice (A) mathematically (more people survived), biologically (the human species lives on) etc. whereas you presumably justify you decision based on gut feeling morality.

Besides I fully believe that what is considered unthinkable now may not be so unthinkable in the future. As resources become more sparse it might seem fully justifiable by an overwhelming majority to not take care of the week and needy. The heuristic used for measuring morality has changed a lot over 1000 years, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't change over the next 1000 years.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But from the perception of someone who chooses option A, choosers of option B look as if they want the destruction of the human race which is a wrong perception just like those who choose option B thinking that choosers of option A want to see the sick and the weak die. Both perceptions are wrong if that's the case but in terms of choosing one or the other both options are as right or as wrong as eachother. What would you choose if this was the case and these were the only options?

Mickeroo · 15-04-2009 04:31PM

It's retty black and white to me.

A) Not everyone dies

Everyone dies

I choose A.

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 04:48PM

pts wrote: »

One (not very good) reason might be that you or someone you love would be killed off if option A was chosen.

Why is that not a good reason? Some choosers of option A might call you a selfish fool but who says what they think is right?

pts wrote: »

Might be a badly chosen word. In fairness though "gut feeling" isn't a horrible way to describe the voice in your head that says "you can't do that" from time to time.

I'm not against gut feeling just because I asked you why you think my decision is based on gut feeling. I have gut feeling all the time. When something doesn't feel right for me, nine times out of ten it turns out that way.

pts wrote: »

I nearly agree with you. However I think you're missing one crucial point though. Regardless of which option you choose the sick and needy will die. So the question becomes which of the two the two consequences would you find the easiest to live with (assuming you survive). This is where we differ. I would justify my choice (A) mathematically (more people survived), biologically (the human species lives on) etc. whereas you presumably justify you decision based on gut feeling morality.

I'm not trying to justify my position though, I'm just telling you what I would choose. The fact that you are justifying your position in choosing option A is very telling. It tells me that for some reason you must convince yourself that choosing option A is the right option based on mathematical and biological reasoning. It tells me that your wanting to be right in the decision also stems from an internalized moral obligation to do so. Where does that come from?

pts wrote: »

Besides I fully believe that what is considered unthinkable now may not be so unthinkable in the future. As resources become more sparse it might seem fully justifiable by an overwhelming majority to not take care of the week and needy. The heuristic used for measuring morality has changed a lot over 1000 years, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't change over the next 1000 years.

So if the majority agree does that make it OK? What about the right of option B choosers who don't agree?

marco_polo · 15-04-2009 04:52PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the absence of God there is no right or wrong choice. Both are made based on internal moral value systems and neither choosers of option A or B can say that the other is wrong.

In the presence of God and without a divine command in choosing either or, then the best way to proceed is to go with one's own conscience. Without a divine command in respect of the choosing, a just God can only judge you by your motives. He sees the heart so He would know why you chose what you chose, so if your motives in choosing either or were based on what you have internalized as the right choice then there would be nothing to worry about.

But in the presence of a divine command in choosing either A or B, then obeying the divine command would be the way to go no matter what option that might be.

So basically with a God there is no right answer in that case either? And once you believe you made the right choice that God is ok with that?

I still don't see how that give any more meaning to the decision.

I could ask the same question but in reverse, if there is no absolute morality then how is it that moral dilemmas can even exist.

Eh, because different people have different interpretations of what is the moral course of action and what is not? Its all relative

pts · 15-04-2009 05:19PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why is that not a good reason? Some choosers of option A might call you a selfish fool but who says what they think is right?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not against gut feeling just because I asked you why you think my decision is based on gut feeling. I have gut feeling all the time. When something doesn't feel right for me, nine times out of ten it turns out that way.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not trying to justify my position though, I'm just telling you what I would choose. The fact that you are justifying your position in choosing option A is very telling. It tells me that for some reason you must convince yourself that choosing option A is the right option based on mathematical and biological reasoning. It tells me that your wanting to be right in the decision also stems from an internalized moral obligation to do so. Where does that come from?

To answer the above questions. I think it is important to be able to justify my decision. If someone asked me, after I picked option A why I picked A I would like to have an answer (because I just killed billions of people, and the decision will kill billions more in the future).
I think that a decision, based on all known facts at the time which has been logically derived can't be faulted. The information I had may be wrong, but as long as the derivation is sound how can my decision be criticized?
However if I make my decision based on my morality I think it would be very easy to disagree with, as people have different value systems.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if the majority agree does that make it OK? What about the right of option B choosers who don't agree?

Depends on how you look at it. If morality is relative (which I believe) then it means that option A is not necessary "right". Option B choosers can disagree as much as they like, but it wasn't their decision to make, it was mine. Something that would probably haunt me for the rest of my life.

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 05:30PM

marco_polo wrote: »

So basically with a God there is no right answer in that case either? And once you believe you made the right choice that God is ok with that?

You asked if God existed, then what. I said that in the absence of a divine command from God that the decision to choose what you thought was the right one would be ok even if God didn't agree. God cannot expect you to know what He thinks unless He reveals what He thinks to you. But if He reveals what He thinks to you and commands you to choose option A then you choosing option B would be wrong. Right and wrong stop with God if He exists, so whatever He says is wrong then that is wrong and whatever He says is right then that is right. If He doesn't exist then neither of the options are right or wrong. One option has long term benefits for the fit in society and the other has short term benefits for the weak. That's it.

marco_polo wrote: »

I still don't see how that give any more meaning to the decision.

Well I can't make it mean anything to you, I can only explain what it means to me.

marco_polo wrote: »

Eh, because different people have different interpretations of what is the moral course of action and what is not? Its all relative

By what is it that makes us want to be right about our choices? Why can't we just do it? Why analyze it to see if its right or not? If there is no God then there is no ultimate definition of what's right and what's wrong, all that's left are subjective opinions on the the matter with nothing ultimately to anchor those opinions to.

Soul Winner · 15-04-2009 05:38PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's retty black and white to me.

A) Not everyone dies

Everyone dies

I choose A.

You do realize that choosing option A will mean living in a world where the weak and needy are totally rejected and not cared for all the time. Could you really live in a world like that? This is not a criticism just an honest question and a way of clarifying what choosing option A entails.

marco_polo · 15-04-2009 07:20PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

You asked if God existed, then what. I said that in the absence of a divine command from God that the decision to choose what you thought was the right one would be ok even if God didn't agree. God cannot expect you to know what He thinks unless He reveals what He thinks to you. But if He reveals what He thinks to you and commands you to choose option A then you choosing option B would be wrong. Right and wrong stop with God if He exists, so whatever He says is wrong then that is wrong and whatever He says is right then that is right. If He doesn't exist then neither of the options are right or wrong. One option has long term benefits for the fit in society and the other has short term benefits for the weak. That's it.

Well if you do not know in advance of any given decision which one is morally correct it is not much use as a moral compass. How would that even work? When you die and go to heaven does God go over every decision to make and tell you which ones were right and which ones were wrong.

If that is the case is it not bit late to use it as a basis for your morality throughout life, what with being dead and all that.

Well I can't make it mean anything to you, I can only explain what it means to me.

By what is it that makes us want to be right about our choices? Why can't we just do it? Why analyze it to see if its right or not? If there is no God then there is no ultimate definition of what's right and what's wrong, all that's left are subjective opinions on the the matter with nothing ultimately to anchor those opinions to.

Exactly. Just because you find that distasteful does not mean it isn't true.

Out of curiousity say for arguements sake I proved there was no God, do you believe you would start running around killing grannies and eating babies?

A hypothetical dilemma?

Comments